Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations to offload behavioral disclosure, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not mention side effects, whether the operation is read-only, or what the return format is. While 'find' implies a read operation, this is not explicitly stated, and the output shape is left undefined.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the purpose and gives examples. No redundant information or fluff; it is well-structured and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic intent, but it lacks details about the result format (e.g., list vs. single item, ordering, pagination). Since there is no output schema to fill this gap, the description could be more complete by mentioning what the output looks like.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The parameter 'category' has a basic schema description ('Food category to search for'), but the tool description adds valuable context by listing example categories (grain, root, fruit, legume, etc.). This effectively defines the expected input domain beyond the bare schema, though it does not provide an exhaustive list or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: finding African foods by category. It names the resource (African foods), the action (find), and provides concrete examples of accepted categories (grain, root, fruit, etc.), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., find_foods_by_country). While the category-based scope is implicit, no direct guidance or comparison to sibling tools is provided, leaving the selection criteria unstated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.